I honestly disagree with the veto right because it makes it too easy to be abused. In my opinion, a supermajority (66% or even 75%) agreement should be sufficient.
They said that Liberum Veto rotted the Polish-Lithuanian parliament.
What worked best in my experience is having a roundtable discussion between all the interviewers about their experience, and any concerns or objections they have. i.e. soft veto.
The hiring manager had the ultimate say, though. But he/she had to acknowledge, address, and own any objection and take personal responsibility for it if the candidate was hired.
When you have a good team who is earnestly focused on preserving a good team, it works really well. Red flag objections were pretty much never ignored, and were effectively vetoes. Minor objections or slight concerns about experience or aptitude, if they were overridden, prompted hiring managers to take extra time and care to help ensure the new hire's success.
I honestly disagree with the veto right because it makes it too easy to be abused. In my opinion, a supermajority (66% or even 75%) agreement should be sufficient. They said that Liberum Veto rotted the Polish-Lithuanian parliament.